11 ms·

But there’s no one else to vote for, they’d still vote for her with Romney as the VP. With that vs Trump as the other option, she’d still get the votes from the

by rzz3 2y ago

But there’s no one else to vote for, they’d still vote for her with Romney as the VP. With that vs Trump as the other option, she’d still get the votes from the progressive base and potentially bring over a few more independent voters.

woodruffw 2y ago
The US doesn't have mandatory voting; when people are thoroughly demotivated by their party's platform but are unwilling to vote for the other party, they stay home. (I'm not saying whether or not I would. But I think this kind of brinkmanship is a very dangerous game to play, especially in the context of a cross-party ticket.)
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Assuming the Democrats go with Harris, I can say whole heartedly that I won't be voting this year. I view voting as a responsibility to pick a candidate I want to lead rather than a vote to block someone I don't want to lead. This time around I have seen no candidate I could feel even mildly comfortable with. I'm not happy about it, but given my view on why I should vote I don't feel comfortable voting for Trump, Harris, or Biden. Voting for one to spite another would require me first to change my mind on what a vote means or cave on my principles.
  - uxcolumbo 2y ago
    Don’t you think Trump will dismantle our rights (see project 2025) and that it is our duty to vote to make sure he doesn’t get into power and turn this country into an autocracy?
    - greenchair 2y ago
      did he turn this country into an autocracy from 2016-2020? k
      - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
        He tried to overturn the election in 2020, but he didn’t really have his ducks in a row. If he is in power in 2028, he will likely be more successful.
    - neverartful 2y ago
      Can you provide any evidence that Trump supports project 2025?
      - trealira 2y ago
        In April 2022, at a dinner with the Heritage foundation, he said that the Heritage foundation was going to "lay the groundwork for what our movement will do." https://x.com/VaughnHillyard/status/1811402883604050216 https://x.com/VaughnHillyard/status/1811402883604050216 "Our country is going to hell. The critical job of institutions such as Heritage is to lay the groundwork, and Heritage does such an incredible job at that. [...] But this is a great group. They're going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do, when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America, and that's coming." Here's the whole transcript: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-delivers-keynote-speech-in-florida-4-21-22-transcript https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-delivers-k... At the same time, Trump has been saying "I know nothing about Project 2025" and "I have no idea who is behind it." Edit: Also, CNN says 140 people from the Trump administration worked on Project 2025: https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/11/politics/trump-allies-project-2025/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/11/politics/trump-allies-project...
        seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        I think Trump, not really being into policy at all, just populism, really does have no idea what it’s project 2025, but he is still going to pick many of the writers and supporters of it to run his government, he doesn’t really have better choices. Trump is the kind of guy who will say he is against abortion while asking and paying for his mistress to get one. He has a great sense on how to work populism, but doesn’t really have ideals/policies of his own.
        trealira 2y ago
        Yeah, I agree with you. He's not super focused on policy, and he likely skimmed Project 2025, or never read it himself. But like you said, he'll still pick many people who worked on it or who will follow it while serving as part of his administration, and that's what's worrying. I have no reason to assume his administration won't try to implement it.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      I think Biden was too far down the path of cognitive decline, and I think Harris is incompetent and only fell into this opportunity as a combination of DEI and a political party completely blind to the obvious truth that Biden is dealing with health issues and allowing him to serve another four years is both dangerous for the country and borderline elder abuse in my opinion. I won't vote for whoever the Democrats propose simply because I dislike Trump. I can't vote for anyone I think will make our country worse, and if Harris is selected I do feel that way about her as well.
      - uxcolumbo 2y ago
        How did the last years with Biden and Harris made the country worse? What about the CHIP act or the infrastructure bill and many other examples. Those things made the country worse? How is Harris the same as Trump? Trump a convicted felon and rapist and god knows what he did on Epstein's Island. Trump said he will be a dictator for one day (hint: it won't be just a day) vs Harris a criminal prosecutor who understands the importance for upholding law & order. How is Harris going to be bad for the country? This is not about voting for Harris or whoever will be nominated. This is about voting against a wanna be dictator who wants to dismantle our democracy and constitution.
        _heimdall 2y ago
        Both the CHIP act and the infrastructure bill spent money we don't have. I am of the opinion that the federal government should be required to run a balanced budget just like local governments are. So yes, I do view both of those as having made us worse off. I didn't say Trump and Harris are the same. I think both will be bad for our country, but for very different reasons. I haven't seen anything from Harris that makes me believe she is competent or fit for office. While in Congress I was never impressed by her public hearings, she either stayed silent or meandered through very lazy arguments that were often illogical and surprising coming from a lawyer. As VP she has either been completely absent or ineffective. She was tapped to be in charge of correcting our immigration issues for example, other than a single photo of at the border I haven't seen anything come of it. I don't expect I need to lay out why Trump is dangerous for our country. We may disagree on details like whether his felony conviction was unbiased or if you can be labeled a rapist without a conviction, but functionally we're very much on the same page of who he is as a person and why he shouldn't represent the country. > This is not about voting for Harris or whoever will be nominated. This is about voting against a wanna be dictator who wants to dismantle our democracy and constitution. This is where we really have different opinions. My while point in starting this comment thread is that I am sick of having to pick between the least shitty option. It isn't sustainable and ultimately there are very bad scenarios that can play out if voters allow two parties to offer whatever choices they want us to pick between. If Trump wishes to dismantle democracy and our constitution I'll never see that day anyway, I'll either be dead in a battlefield or on the other end of an absolutely terrible, horrific war that never should have happened.
    - thunky 2y ago
      > see project 2025 Did you actually read the project 2025 doc or are you just parroting back what you were told to think? https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/jul/12/project-2025-are-biden-campaign-warnings-about-pla/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/jul/12/project-2025-...
      - fgd135 2y ago
        The link you provided seems to list several rights which would be harmed
      - umbra07 2y ago
        I read all 920 pages.
        thunky 2y ago
        Did you miss the part that says that Trump had nothing to do with it?
        defrost 2y ago
        > Did you miss the part that says that Trump had nothing to do with it? Which page number was that? In any case of course Trump had nothing to do with it, it was written for him not by him (as if). Trump also didn't plan and participate in the decade+ Federalist overthrow of SCOTUS .. that was handed to him on a plate. Like Project 2025.
        thunky 2y ago
        > Which page number was that? The first sentence of the first paragraph: This work, Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise, is a collective effort of hundreds of volunteers who have banded together in the spirit of advancing positive change for America. Our work is by no means the comprehensive compendium of conservative policies, nor is our group the exclusive cadre of conservative thinkers. The ideas expressed in this volume are not necessarily shared by all. What unites us is the drive to make our country better > In any case of course Trump had nothing to do with it, it was written for him not by him (as if). Ok great, so he's free to read it or ignore it. Let's not treat the document as if it's Trump's own stated/promised policy then.
  - rcxdude 2y ago
    You should reevaluate what a vote means. In a country of millions of people, a vote is in absolutely no way a means for you to voice exactly what you want, or even for most people for you to voice an option you would actually like. In FPTP, a vote is for the most preferable option of the top two parties. Anything else is depriving yourself of your say. Other voting systems aren't actually that much different, they just make the information more available (you don't need to guess how others are going to vote beforehand, which can matter even though it's usually fairly predictable) and give people a bit more of a warm fuzzy feeling because they can give a vote for their most preferred option, even if still the outcome is which of top two options is more preferred.
    - jprete 2y ago
      This isn't strictly true. Parties definitely care about motivating their base and arguably the stay-at-home vote has pushed the US away from visible centrism in Presidential candidates.
      - rcxdude 2y ago
        I would suggest that this kind of thing is contributing to the problem as opposed to solving it, even as someone who is not particularly near the center.
        _heimdall 2y ago
        A drop in voter participation creates an opportunity for an alternative party to fill the void. That market opportunity simply wouldn't exist if always accept that we have to eat whatever crap the two major parties decide to serve us.
        amanaplanacanal 2y ago
        How low do you think participation would have to be for another party to step in?
  - hnthrowaway121 2y ago
    I’m curious: Why do you view voting this way? As opposed to simply taking responsibility for voting in a way you believe is the least bad outcome for you and your country?
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      I don't consider myself to owe anything to the parties. They need to earn my vote. If I accept one of the two options no matter how bad I think they both are, that allows for very bad scenarios to be possible and also allows for our political duopoly to continue to dominate. If I don't vote, and if many others also stay home, both parties would scramble to gain support and third parties that previously had no chance at least have a potential market opportunity to break the two party system. Am I allowing my voice to go silent and accepting everyone else to pick my president? Sure, and I don't prefer that, though in a representative democracy I also recognize that my vote doesn't matter anyway if I live in a state that swings the other way. As it so happens, I generally vote Democrat and live in a very Republican state.
      - hnthrowaway121 2y ago
        If you live in a red state but usually vote democrat, a futile vote for a democrat is the only signal they can use to prioritize winning your vote in future. If you can’t make your state winnable, you can’t make your withheld vote mean anything. Which I fine, I was just genuinely curious. I don’t have a vote in the US so I’m not worried about how I spend mine.
      - cdrini 2y ago
        Hmm interesting take. If I understand you correctly, your theory of change is that by not voting in this election (since you see either candidate as similarly good/bad), you might have a long term impact where, in the next election, parties will need to make more of an effort to appeal to their voter bases to increase turnout, resulting in better candidates in the future, correct? Possibly breaking into a multi party system instead of the current dual party system? Also do you think the next 4 years will be similarly good/bad under either candidate? Or do you think one would bring the country more in line with your preference, but don't want to vote in the hopes of bringing about change to the dual party system, or to make the parties try harder to meet the needs of voters like you in future elections?
  - 2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
    I can never understand Americans who say this sort of thing. The US does not have a reasonable voting system. It’s not compulsory, it’s not ranked choice, and you vote for persons not parties. You have a duopoly that’s more or less set up so that a third choice will never be available. You aren’t here to pick an ideal candidate. You are here to pick the one that aligns most with your view that can win. Otherwise you get someone you definitely don’t want.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      I agree with this to an extent and so far hav e voted in every election I have been eligible for, including when I lived overseas. The problem I have today is that I fundamentally disagree with both options and think we will be worse off with either one. I am totally fine accepting and supporting a candidate that I generally agree with, or even just agree with on a few key policies. I'm not okay with having to pick between one candidate who I view to be a sociopathic narcisist or another who I view has being well on his way to serious cognitive issues. Assuming Harris is the new candidate, I'm now left with the narcisist and a candidate who I view as unfit for duty, and an ineffective candidate who fell into this position thanks to a combination of DEI and a white house that refused to accept the limitations of the president. If, on the other hand, voter participation goes down noticeably it can drive change. Both parties will know they lost support and, more importantly for them, have voters to win over. It also opens the door for creating a real chance for a third party that doesn't exist when we all continue to accept the unofficial duopoly that started way back when Hamilton and Jefferson were tearing the union in two.
      - kanbara 2y ago
        [flagged]
        _heimdall 2y ago
        You don't see who I really am, nor is taking Biden at his word limited to the attitude of a generation you disagree with. Biden specifically said he would be picking a VP that was a black woman. Niether is a qualification for the job nor a valid analog for success in the role. How is that not a DEI hire? I'm not even saying DEI as a whole is a bad thing. I wouldn't begin to make such a broad reaching and absolute argument. I will absolutely argue that for roles as important as who is next inline to be President should be entirely about qualifications and fitment for the job. I don't think that a crazy stance at all but I'd love to hear any counterpoints you may have.
  - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
    That's fine but you don't get to complain about the outcome for the next four years.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Well the first amendment begs to differ, but beyond that I absolutely get to complain about the situation. I wouldn't complain about whoever wins because I already don't like either of them. But I may very well complain that the two parties offered candidates that I so strongly felt were bad options that I couldn't vote for either one. I'm not saying I need to agree with everything a candidate says, or even most of it. I need to at least believe that we won't be worse off as a country with the candidate I vote for. I can't sat that for Trump, couldn't say that for Biden, and wouldnt say that for Harris if she is selected.
    - g00gler 2y ago
      I don’t vote, I’m a proud non-voter. People frequently make this statement and I think it’s wrong at face value. If you vote you are giving legitimacy to the beltway uniparty. If the election is “free and fair” why does voting give you the right to complain?
      - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
        You are welcome to vote for Batman or submit an empty ballot. You aren't proving anything through abstinence.
      - wredcoll 2y ago
        Voting gives you the right to complain because you tried to accomplish something. Giving up without trying is generally viewed as a bad thing. But talking about "beltway uniparty" is indicative of a level of lacking intellectual curiosity that's genuinely sad. You can do better than that. Maybe if this was twitter or a dinner party and you're just going for cheap laughs, sure, whatever, but I dunno, I guess this place isn't much different? Maybe it could be though?
        2y ago
  - throwaway89336 2y ago
    In my view, a vote means more than a vote for a leader. It determines the direction of your country. Just look at how a single president has tipped the balance of the Supreme Court, where the judges will remain for decades, and that is only a part of a much larger political picture. The President will only stay for 4-8 years, but the choices they make can have impacts for generations. You need to play the long game and vote for the best interests of your country, even if that means voting for someone you don't like.
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    Two counter points… - there are down-ballot races that might have people they want your vote. And they’re likely more influential over your day to day than POTUS. - staying home strongly implies your ok with Trump winning and the GOP platform being implemented completely.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      That's fair enough. I may very well cast votes for local elections and should have clarified here. When I reference not voting I mean specifically for President. Thanks for calling that out.
  - roughly 2y ago
    > I view voting as a responsibility to pick a candidate I want to lead rather than a vote to block someone I don't want to lead. You can view it however you want, it doesn’t make it true. Perhaps it would help to consider that one of the two candidates will be leading after the election, and make your decision based off of which of the two outcomes you would prefer.
    - SllX 2y ago
      Voting is using a share of power borne of your citizenship to express a political preference. I too used to think of voting as more of an obligation, but it really isn’t. It is a choice. If you’re staring down two candidates you don’t want to vote for and nobody in the 3rd parties is worth registering even a protest vote through, it is entirely reasonable to choose not to vote at all. All the rhetoric that exists to try and drive/guilt people into the ballot box exists for the purpose of trying to get more people to turn out for their preferred candidate.
      - roughly 2y ago
        I’m not stating this as a treatise on political science or theory or the rights and obligations of the citizenry or any other high-minded ideal: come November 6th, one of either Donald Trump or whoever the democrats pick to run will be the president elect, and for the next 4 years, they will be president. What you decide to do with that fact is up to you, and your justifications are your own, but come November 6th, Donald Trump will be the president elect or Kamala or whoever the democrats pick. Those are the two potential outcomes. Talk yourself into whatever you want, just don’t convince yourself there’s a third choice.
        swader999 2y ago
        I'd like to see RFK get enough support to get into debates officially. Supporting him might be considered by most to be a wasted vote, but is it if it changes the discourse? I'm Canadian btw, no horse in this race.
        2y ago
  - dgoodell 2y ago
    I used to see it more like that. But the reality is that one of those candidates is going to get elected whether you vote or not. So not voting is basically just letting other people decide for you. Which is rational if you genuinely believe that will make no difference.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      I generally agree with this. I personally feel like this is an extreme scenario that was so easy to avoid. I have voted in every election I was eligible to vote in, including when I lived overseas. I don't expect to agree 100% with a candidate, heck I'm happy when I agree with two or three policies that I find important. But I just can't accept having to pick between two directions that I think are both fundamentally bad and dangerous.
      - throwaway89336 2y ago
        I guess the question is if they are equally bad. If one side will cause significantly more damage than the other, why would you not want to limit the damage? If you have examined the political agendas of both candidates and think they will cause equal harm, then I see your point. But I don't see how it can apply to this election.
        _heimdall 2y ago
        Is it really possible to quantify the level of bad each side will lead to in the future? And can it be quantified with such accuracy that it can be compared fairly? In this election I only see bad outcomes from either candidate (I'm mainly thinking Biden and Trump, though the same for Harris if she is picked). I can't quantify the bad and I don't know what metrics I would even use. Lets say I thought one would likely lead to economic problems on the scale of the housing crisis and the other would commit a number of troops to die fighting in a foreign war. How would I weigh the damage of those scenarios?
  - dahart 2y ago
    It’s a shame this is getting downvoted to death, as it illustrates the biggest real problem with our voting system, and also illustrates the biggest reason that Dems are at a disadvantage: principles over party. Republicans are much better at voting together for their party and not fretting about whether individual candidates meet their principles, which in turn (maybe ironically) gets them much better support for their principles. Before deciding not to vote, here’s one thing to maybe consider: which vote is more likely to get us any closer to ranked-choice voting, so that you can vote without caving on your principles in the future, and/or maybe getting rid of the electoral college? Conservatives are benefitting massively from the electoral college, gerrymandering, and strong collective party action. Both voting right, and not voting, delays the possibility of an outcome where we can vote on our principles. Dems are losing the vote often, and losing support for their shared principles as a result, despite having an actual majority, due to the party being splintered over principles and being less willing to vote collectively. (Note I’m in favor of voting on principles and not blindly on party. I wish we had a voting system that enabled it. Just pointing out the realities of the different party strategies as I see them.)
    - ifyoubuildit 2y ago
      > Republicans are much better at voting together for their party and not fretting about whether individual candidates meet their principles, I've seen a lot of "vote blue no matter who", to the point that it seems a lot of people don't care at all who the specific person is, as long as they aren't on the wrong team.
      - dahart 2y ago
        Yep true, that is happening - and mostly because people are recognizing it’s what the GOP is doing and it’s working, and trying to emulate it.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      I was kind of hoping my original comment here would lead to more meaningful conversation like this. I have to assume there are others here that feel similar to me, but it's an opinion that many may not raise for exactly like many of the ones I got here (down votes and arguments for why I'm wrong and must vote). I'm not opposed to ranked choice voting or straight majority rules voting. I could see voting for congressional representatives that I believe to be serious about such a change, but the president really doesn't have any say in it. I'm also totally open to other potentials the Democrats could pick. The bar is really low in my opinion, I just need to see someone that I don't expect to be actively harmful to the country, especially with so many different challenging scenarios playing out globally right now.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > I view voting as a responsibility to pick a candidate I want to lead rather than a vote to block someone I don't want to lead My viewing water as a non-liquid doesn’t make it less wet. Not voting is a delegated vote for the status quo, i.e. whoever wins.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Not voting can also be a principled stance when I view both candidstes as a fundamentally bad option. Where will we be if we all agree that the two parties have full control and we have no choice but to accept whatever they offer us? To me that sounds like a way to ensure that our democracy isn't sustainable. If someone puts a gun in your hand and says you have no choice but to shoot your spouse or your child, would you actually accept that you must do one or the other? I'm well aware that's an extreme example and I'm not arguing that we are at that level politically today, but accepting one of the two parties no matter what the options are does allow for that scenario later.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Not voting can also be a principled stance when I view both candidstes as a fundamentally bad option Sure. And I agree someone thinking that way shouldn't vote. None of that changes the effects of not voting when one has the right to. > Where will we be if we all agree that the two parties have full control and we have no choice but to accept whatever they offer us? Most people seeking to justify civic nonparticipation ignore primaries and early campaign work. Or the fact that ballots have more than one line item. > accepting one of the two parties no matter what the options are does allow for that scenario later Not voting cedes control. There are zero historic examples of civic nonparticipation resulting in a more responsive government. Someone who doesn't vote functionally accepts the status quo. That they don't understand what they're doing isn't relevant. Put another way: there were hundreds of elections in 2023 [1]. A non-voter had precisely the same impact on each of them as they do where they live. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elections_in_2023 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elections_in_2023
        2y ago
  - beowulfey 2y ago
    100% getting deja vu back to 2016 with this comment
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      I was very unhappy with the options in 2016 and 2020 as well. Both times I bit my lip and voted for a candidate I didn't believe in because I at least believed they could do the job and they weren't Trump. I just can't do it again, and even if I wanted to I didn't have faith that Biden could do the job any longer and I don't think Harris is qualified at all (if that's who they pick).
  - kanbara 2y ago
    this take is bad for one simple reason: if you stay home and trump wins, we don’t have a country or democracy anymore, and you contributed directly to the destruction of social norms and systems that ensure peace, stability, and the rule of law. you can feel smug as the republican party destroys democracy and slides into fascism, but it won’t really get you anywhere.
    - swader999 2y ago
      He already had one term. The world didn't end. I don't understand this line of doom.
      - cloverich 2y ago
        Because he undermined the election process in a serious way. If he loses, it sends a signal that siding with someone who does that is risky. If he wins, it opens the door to someone much more cunning than him, to do the same thing, but better. Its a brilliant way to short-circuit the entire political system which has let the US enjoy such a brilliant stretch of stability.
        _heimdall 2y ago
        Let's put Trump aside for a moment. What do you see a Harris presidency looking like? Do you think she is our country's best option to solve the problems we face today, or is her role to fill the chair so Trump can't sit in it?
        lostdog 2y ago
        Harris will be fine but unremarkable. Middle of the road economic policy, with slightly more protectionism for high tech. Immigration policy continues as-is, with a slight increase in preventing illegal immigration. An Obama-like foreign policy, with good intentions, but bumbling in execution. Compare that to Trump's recorded: Exploded deficits due to tax cuts. Banning abortion. More power given to corporations over people. Harming our alliances. Maybe you disagree with this characterization, but so many people that he chose for his administration came out and said how terrible of a President he was. I'm not a Kamala fan, but the choice is so easy.
  - JojoFatsani 2y ago
    Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Thats the problem, I don't see either option as event adjacent to "good". A bit beside the point, but I also don't appreciate the Democratic Party putting us in this position to begin with. It has been clear for over a year, even with limited public events, that Biden's health and cognitive ability was declining. We now are left with an unprecedented scenario of the party having to figure out how to pick a candidate in record time with zero voter input.
  - mcswell 2y ago
    As Jack Aubrey said, one must always pick the lesser of two weevils.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    You see your responsibility as wrong. We are caretakers of the country, we should vote for the best person to lead it, but barring that, we should vote against someone destructive taking power. If the country goes to heck in the next 4 years (and it hasn’t yet, the last 3.5 years have been pretty peaceful) because you decided voting against someone wasn’t moral, then you have to blame yourself. Of course, if you don’t live in a swing state, then you can pretty much not vote and not feel any responsibility for the outcome, since we have so little influence anyways.
    - RachelM71948937 2y ago
      [dead]
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      > we should vote against someone destructive taking power What do we do if we believe both options to be destructive in different ways? I believed that re-electing Biden in his current state would be destructive, potentially because he isn't fit today not certainly because he won't be in 4.5 years. I believe Trump to be a sociopathic narcissist. And, if Harris is selected, I view her to be unfit for the job and an incompetent leader that would be walking into the Oval Office at one of the most important times we've seen since the 40s. I don't live in a swing state so I do agree my vote is ignored anyway, but I have voted every presidential election until now anyway. I want my voice heard, I just don't want to align my voice with any of these options and don't see how they could possibly be the best our country has to offer.
      - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        Whatever you think about him, Biden has been a boring adult, not a petulant 5 year old. He makes boring adult decisions, he never complained when the fed raised interest rates because inflation took off (like Trump did), I don't have to worry about him going off and nationalizing the fed, or replacing income taxes with a tariff that will make life much harder for everyone. Basically, he is a boring guy who doesn't even entertain doing crazy stuff. Trump is a pure populist, narcissist, and really, every thing he proposes is nuts. I get you view Harris as unfit for no particular reason other than you think she is a DEI hire or something. But I bet she is just like other adult politicians, who isn't going to be very interesting, but isn't going to do anything crazy either. Anyways, the bar is low since I don't think Democrats could run anyone that would make me consider Trump's insanity. Heck, I'm probably splitting my vote this year, since I don't like Bob Ferguson for governor of WA, I'm a moderate who isn't happy with the decriminalization that has happened in my city/county/state over the last four years. BUT I value stability over anything else, I at least will vote for adults and not 5 year olds (I never thought we would get here, but Romney, McCain, and even Bush were grown ups that I could stomach).
  - wayeq 2y ago
    That's exactly how we got 4 years of Trump, people in the critical swing states weren't motivated to go vote for Hillary. He then attempted to disenfranchise millions of Americans in the 2020 election, coming surrealistically close to achieving that goal, and incited an insurrection. So please don't make this mistake.
    - talldatethrow 2y ago
      Do you really think it was an insurrection? Trump supporters are definitely in the gun owning demographics. Yet basically zero guns were present in the whole event, especially inside the capital. To me that screams not an insurrection.
      - pell 2y ago
        I think you might be a bit misinformed there. I’d suggest you give this a read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
        talldatethrow 2y ago
        So this certificate thing was the insurrection?
  - kiitos 2y ago
    The US has a first-past-the-post electoral system, and in that particular system, the way the game theory plays out is that it always stabilizes to a two-party situation, and, very literally, your responsibility as a voter is in fact to vote for the candidate with which you are most closely aligned. Anything else is self-subverting.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      That model fails when I align with neither candidate. It also fails if both parties were to collude and offer us a false choice (hypothetical, I'm not proposing that's what we have today).
      - kiitos 2y ago
        Maybe I'm not communicating clearly. The model is about the game theoretics of the electoral system, it has nothing to do with the preferences of any individual voter.
  - Modified3019 2y ago
    Yeah, same. Honestly I’m flabbergasted at the state of things.
xhevahir 2y ago
There's always the option, taken by millions of Americans every election, of not voting for anyone. A unity ticket of two unpopular centrist candidates is not a recipe for success.
- alistairSH 2y ago
  Not voting is a vote for “whatever”. If you really don’t see a difference between Trump and Harris (or Biden or any other), I’m really not sure what to say…
  - lotsoweiners 2y ago
    Yet you still felt the need to say something.
magicink81 2y ago
RFK Jr and Nicole Shanahan are running, and already on the ballot in 29 states. Though you won't see them interviewed on CNN or Fox News, many polls show them winning against Trump. One of the reasons that RFK Jr started his campaign last year was a poll by Zogby which "surveyed over 26,000 likely voters across all 50 states, indicated that Kennedy could potentially outperform both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump in head-to-head matchups." I believe the poll showed the majority of independent votes going to RFK Jr, and a significant portion of D and R votes going to him as well. Given recent events, perhaps Trump is now much more popular, but previously polls showed RFK Jr beating Trump. https://www.kennedy24.com/ https://www.kennedy24.com/
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > perhaps Trump is now much more popular, but previously polls showed RFK Jr beating Trump Trump isn’t more popular. RFK was never beating anybody. If he played his card better he might have put himself into the running for Trump’s VP. The bigger problem is there is a strong political incentive to look at who doesn’t vote and transfer their chips to those who do. (Appealing to non-voters doesn’t work. Most non-voters aren’t principled, they’re just lazy or indecisive, irrespective of what they say.)
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  It’s more conceivable than people are willing to believe that RFK could get more votes than trump in this election. For example, trump might die before election day, in which RFK might have a chance. Not at winning broadly of course.

by rzz3 2y ago

woodruffw 2y ago

The US doesn't have mandatory voting; when people are thoroughly demotivated by their party's platform but are unwilling to vote for the other party, they stay home. (I'm not saying whether or not I would. But I think this kind of brinkmanship is a very dangerous game to play, especially in the context of a cross-party ticket.)

_heimdall 2y ago
Assuming the Democrats go with Harris, I can say whole heartedly that I won't be voting this year. I view voting as a responsibility to pick a candidate I want to lead rather than a vote to block someone I don't want to lead. This time around I have seen no candidate I could feel even mildly comfortable with. I'm not happy about it, but given my view on why I should vote I don't feel comfortable voting for Trump, Harris, or Biden. Voting for one to spite another would require me first to change my mind on what a vote means or cave on my principles.
- uxcolumbo 2y ago
  Don’t you think Trump will dismantle our rights (see project 2025) and that it is our duty to vote to make sure he doesn’t get into power and turn this country into an autocracy?
  - greenchair 2y ago
    did he turn this country into an autocracy from 2016-2020? k
    - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
      He tried to overturn the election in 2020, but he didn’t really have his ducks in a row. If he is in power in 2028, he will likely be more successful.
  - neverartful 2y ago
    Can you provide any evidence that Trump supports project 2025?
    - trealira 2y ago
      In April 2022, at a dinner with the Heritage foundation, he said that the Heritage foundation was going to "lay the groundwork for what our movement will do." https://x.com/VaughnHillyard/status/1811402883604050216 https://x.com/VaughnHillyard/status/1811402883604050216 "Our country is going to hell. The critical job of institutions such as Heritage is to lay the groundwork, and Heritage does such an incredible job at that. [...] But this is a great group. They're going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do, when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America, and that's coming." Here's the whole transcript: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-delivers-keynote-speech-in-florida-4-21-22-transcript https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-delivers-k... At the same time, Trump has been saying "I know nothing about Project 2025" and "I have no idea who is behind it." Edit: Also, CNN says 140 people from the Trump administration worked on Project 2025: https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/11/politics/trump-allies-project-2025/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/11/politics/trump-allies-project...
      - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        I think Trump, not really being into policy at all, just populism, really does have no idea what it’s project 2025, but he is still going to pick many of the writers and supporters of it to run his government, he doesn’t really have better choices. Trump is the kind of guy who will say he is against abortion while asking and paying for his mistress to get one. He has a great sense on how to work populism, but doesn’t really have ideals/policies of his own.
        trealira 2y ago
        Yeah, I agree with you. He's not super focused on policy, and he likely skimmed Project 2025, or never read it himself. But like you said, he'll still pick many people who worked on it or who will follow it while serving as part of his administration, and that's what's worrying. I have no reason to assume his administration won't try to implement it.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    I think Biden was too far down the path of cognitive decline, and I think Harris is incompetent and only fell into this opportunity as a combination of DEI and a political party completely blind to the obvious truth that Biden is dealing with health issues and allowing him to serve another four years is both dangerous for the country and borderline elder abuse in my opinion. I won't vote for whoever the Democrats propose simply because I dislike Trump. I can't vote for anyone I think will make our country worse, and if Harris is selected I do feel that way about her as well.
    - uxcolumbo 2y ago
      How did the last years with Biden and Harris made the country worse? What about the CHIP act or the infrastructure bill and many other examples. Those things made the country worse? How is Harris the same as Trump? Trump a convicted felon and rapist and god knows what he did on Epstein's Island. Trump said he will be a dictator for one day (hint: it won't be just a day) vs Harris a criminal prosecutor who understands the importance for upholding law & order. How is Harris going to be bad for the country? This is not about voting for Harris or whoever will be nominated. This is about voting against a wanna be dictator who wants to dismantle our democracy and constitution.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        Both the CHIP act and the infrastructure bill spent money we don't have. I am of the opinion that the federal government should be required to run a balanced budget just like local governments are. So yes, I do view both of those as having made us worse off. I didn't say Trump and Harris are the same. I think both will be bad for our country, but for very different reasons. I haven't seen anything from Harris that makes me believe she is competent or fit for office. While in Congress I was never impressed by her public hearings, she either stayed silent or meandered through very lazy arguments that were often illogical and surprising coming from a lawyer. As VP she has either been completely absent or ineffective. She was tapped to be in charge of correcting our immigration issues for example, other than a single photo of at the border I haven't seen anything come of it. I don't expect I need to lay out why Trump is dangerous for our country. We may disagree on details like whether his felony conviction was unbiased or if you can be labeled a rapist without a conviction, but functionally we're very much on the same page of who he is as a person and why he shouldn't represent the country. > This is not about voting for Harris or whoever will be nominated. This is about voting against a wanna be dictator who wants to dismantle our democracy and constitution. This is where we really have different opinions. My while point in starting this comment thread is that I am sick of having to pick between the least shitty option. It isn't sustainable and ultimately there are very bad scenarios that can play out if voters allow two parties to offer whatever choices they want us to pick between. If Trump wishes to dismantle democracy and our constitution I'll never see that day anyway, I'll either be dead in a battlefield or on the other end of an absolutely terrible, horrific war that never should have happened.
  - thunky 2y ago
    > see project 2025 Did you actually read the project 2025 doc or are you just parroting back what you were told to think? https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/jul/12/project-2025-are-biden-campaign-warnings-about-pla/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/jul/12/project-2025-...
    - fgd135 2y ago
      The link you provided seems to list several rights which would be harmed
    - umbra07 2y ago
      I read all 920 pages.
      - thunky 2y ago
        Did you miss the part that says that Trump had nothing to do with it?
        defrost 2y ago
        > Did you miss the part that says that Trump had nothing to do with it? Which page number was that? In any case of course Trump had nothing to do with it, it was written for him not by him (as if). Trump also didn't plan and participate in the decade+ Federalist overthrow of SCOTUS .. that was handed to him on a plate. Like Project 2025.
        thunky 2y ago
        > Which page number was that? The first sentence of the first paragraph: This work, Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise, is a collective effort of hundreds of volunteers who have banded together in the spirit of advancing positive change for America. Our work is by no means the comprehensive compendium of conservative policies, nor is our group the exclusive cadre of conservative thinkers. The ideas expressed in this volume are not necessarily shared by all. What unites us is the drive to make our country better > In any case of course Trump had nothing to do with it, it was written for him not by him (as if). Ok great, so he's free to read it or ignore it. Let's not treat the document as if it's Trump's own stated/promised policy then.
- rcxdude 2y ago
  You should reevaluate what a vote means. In a country of millions of people, a vote is in absolutely no way a means for you to voice exactly what you want, or even for most people for you to voice an option you would actually like. In FPTP, a vote is for the most preferable option of the top two parties. Anything else is depriving yourself of your say. Other voting systems aren't actually that much different, they just make the information more available (you don't need to guess how others are going to vote beforehand, which can matter even though it's usually fairly predictable) and give people a bit more of a warm fuzzy feeling because they can give a vote for their most preferred option, even if still the outcome is which of top two options is more preferred.
  - jprete 2y ago
    This isn't strictly true. Parties definitely care about motivating their base and arguably the stay-at-home vote has pushed the US away from visible centrism in Presidential candidates.
    - rcxdude 2y ago
      I would suggest that this kind of thing is contributing to the problem as opposed to solving it, even as someone who is not particularly near the center.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        A drop in voter participation creates an opportunity for an alternative party to fill the void. That market opportunity simply wouldn't exist if always accept that we have to eat whatever crap the two major parties decide to serve us.
        amanaplanacanal 2y ago
        How low do you think participation would have to be for another party to step in?
- hnthrowaway121 2y ago
  I’m curious: Why do you view voting this way? As opposed to simply taking responsibility for voting in a way you believe is the least bad outcome for you and your country?
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    I don't consider myself to owe anything to the parties. They need to earn my vote. If I accept one of the two options no matter how bad I think they both are, that allows for very bad scenarios to be possible and also allows for our political duopoly to continue to dominate. If I don't vote, and if many others also stay home, both parties would scramble to gain support and third parties that previously had no chance at least have a potential market opportunity to break the two party system. Am I allowing my voice to go silent and accepting everyone else to pick my president? Sure, and I don't prefer that, though in a representative democracy I also recognize that my vote doesn't matter anyway if I live in a state that swings the other way. As it so happens, I generally vote Democrat and live in a very Republican state.
    - hnthrowaway121 2y ago
      If you live in a red state but usually vote democrat, a futile vote for a democrat is the only signal they can use to prioritize winning your vote in future. If you can’t make your state winnable, you can’t make your withheld vote mean anything. Which I fine, I was just genuinely curious. I don’t have a vote in the US so I’m not worried about how I spend mine.
    - cdrini 2y ago
      Hmm interesting take. If I understand you correctly, your theory of change is that by not voting in this election (since you see either candidate as similarly good/bad), you might have a long term impact where, in the next election, parties will need to make more of an effort to appeal to their voter bases to increase turnout, resulting in better candidates in the future, correct? Possibly breaking into a multi party system instead of the current dual party system? Also do you think the next 4 years will be similarly good/bad under either candidate? Or do you think one would bring the country more in line with your preference, but don't want to vote in the hopes of bringing about change to the dual party system, or to make the parties try harder to meet the needs of voters like you in future elections?
- 2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
  I can never understand Americans who say this sort of thing. The US does not have a reasonable voting system. It’s not compulsory, it’s not ranked choice, and you vote for persons not parties. You have a duopoly that’s more or less set up so that a third choice will never be available. You aren’t here to pick an ideal candidate. You are here to pick the one that aligns most with your view that can win. Otherwise you get someone you definitely don’t want.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    I agree with this to an extent and so far hav e voted in every election I have been eligible for, including when I lived overseas. The problem I have today is that I fundamentally disagree with both options and think we will be worse off with either one. I am totally fine accepting and supporting a candidate that I generally agree with, or even just agree with on a few key policies. I'm not okay with having to pick between one candidate who I view to be a sociopathic narcisist or another who I view has being well on his way to serious cognitive issues. Assuming Harris is the new candidate, I'm now left with the narcisist and a candidate who I view as unfit for duty, and an ineffective candidate who fell into this position thanks to a combination of DEI and a white house that refused to accept the limitations of the president. If, on the other hand, voter participation goes down noticeably it can drive change. Both parties will know they lost support and, more importantly for them, have voters to win over. It also opens the door for creating a real chance for a third party that doesn't exist when we all continue to accept the unofficial duopoly that started way back when Hamilton and Jefferson were tearing the union in two.
    - kanbara 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        You don't see who I really am, nor is taking Biden at his word limited to the attitude of a generation you disagree with. Biden specifically said he would be picking a VP that was a black woman. Niether is a qualification for the job nor a valid analog for success in the role. How is that not a DEI hire? I'm not even saying DEI as a whole is a bad thing. I wouldn't begin to make such a broad reaching and absolute argument. I will absolutely argue that for roles as important as who is next inline to be President should be entirely about qualifications and fitment for the job. I don't think that a crazy stance at all but I'd love to hear any counterpoints you may have.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  That's fine but you don't get to complain about the outcome for the next four years.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Well the first amendment begs to differ, but beyond that I absolutely get to complain about the situation. I wouldn't complain about whoever wins because I already don't like either of them. But I may very well complain that the two parties offered candidates that I so strongly felt were bad options that I couldn't vote for either one. I'm not saying I need to agree with everything a candidate says, or even most of it. I need to at least believe that we won't be worse off as a country with the candidate I vote for. I can't sat that for Trump, couldn't say that for Biden, and wouldnt say that for Harris if she is selected.
  - g00gler 2y ago
    I don’t vote, I’m a proud non-voter. People frequently make this statement and I think it’s wrong at face value. If you vote you are giving legitimacy to the beltway uniparty. If the election is “free and fair” why does voting give you the right to complain?
    - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
      You are welcome to vote for Batman or submit an empty ballot. You aren't proving anything through abstinence.
    - wredcoll 2y ago
      Voting gives you the right to complain because you tried to accomplish something. Giving up without trying is generally viewed as a bad thing. But talking about "beltway uniparty" is indicative of a level of lacking intellectual curiosity that's genuinely sad. You can do better than that. Maybe if this was twitter or a dinner party and you're just going for cheap laughs, sure, whatever, but I dunno, I guess this place isn't much different? Maybe it could be though?
      - 2y ago
- throwaway89336 2y ago
  In my view, a vote means more than a vote for a leader. It determines the direction of your country. Just look at how a single president has tipped the balance of the Supreme Court, where the judges will remain for decades, and that is only a part of a much larger political picture. The President will only stay for 4-8 years, but the choices they make can have impacts for generations. You need to play the long game and vote for the best interests of your country, even if that means voting for someone you don't like.
- alistairSH 2y ago
  Two counter points… - there are down-ballot races that might have people they want your vote. And they’re likely more influential over your day to day than POTUS. - staying home strongly implies your ok with Trump winning and the GOP platform being implemented completely.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    That's fair enough. I may very well cast votes for local elections and should have clarified here. When I reference not voting I mean specifically for President. Thanks for calling that out.
- roughly 2y ago
  > I view voting as a responsibility to pick a candidate I want to lead rather than a vote to block someone I don't want to lead. You can view it however you want, it doesn’t make it true. Perhaps it would help to consider that one of the two candidates will be leading after the election, and make your decision based off of which of the two outcomes you would prefer.
  - SllX 2y ago
    Voting is using a share of power borne of your citizenship to express a political preference. I too used to think of voting as more of an obligation, but it really isn’t. It is a choice. If you’re staring down two candidates you don’t want to vote for and nobody in the 3rd parties is worth registering even a protest vote through, it is entirely reasonable to choose not to vote at all. All the rhetoric that exists to try and drive/guilt people into the ballot box exists for the purpose of trying to get more people to turn out for their preferred candidate.
    - roughly 2y ago
      I’m not stating this as a treatise on political science or theory or the rights and obligations of the citizenry or any other high-minded ideal: come November 6th, one of either Donald Trump or whoever the democrats pick to run will be the president elect, and for the next 4 years, they will be president. What you decide to do with that fact is up to you, and your justifications are your own, but come November 6th, Donald Trump will be the president elect or Kamala or whoever the democrats pick. Those are the two potential outcomes. Talk yourself into whatever you want, just don’t convince yourself there’s a third choice.
      - swader999 2y ago
        I'd like to see RFK get enough support to get into debates officially. Supporting him might be considered by most to be a wasted vote, but is it if it changes the discourse? I'm Canadian btw, no horse in this race.
        2y ago
- dgoodell 2y ago
  I used to see it more like that. But the reality is that one of those candidates is going to get elected whether you vote or not. So not voting is basically just letting other people decide for you. Which is rational if you genuinely believe that will make no difference.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    I generally agree with this. I personally feel like this is an extreme scenario that was so easy to avoid. I have voted in every election I was eligible to vote in, including when I lived overseas. I don't expect to agree 100% with a candidate, heck I'm happy when I agree with two or three policies that I find important. But I just can't accept having to pick between two directions that I think are both fundamentally bad and dangerous.
    - throwaway89336 2y ago
      I guess the question is if they are equally bad. If one side will cause significantly more damage than the other, why would you not want to limit the damage? If you have examined the political agendas of both candidates and think they will cause equal harm, then I see your point. But I don't see how it can apply to this election.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        Is it really possible to quantify the level of bad each side will lead to in the future? And can it be quantified with such accuracy that it can be compared fairly? In this election I only see bad outcomes from either candidate (I'm mainly thinking Biden and Trump, though the same for Harris if she is picked). I can't quantify the bad and I don't know what metrics I would even use. Lets say I thought one would likely lead to economic problems on the scale of the housing crisis and the other would commit a number of troops to die fighting in a foreign war. How would I weigh the damage of those scenarios?
- dahart 2y ago
  It’s a shame this is getting downvoted to death, as it illustrates the biggest real problem with our voting system, and also illustrates the biggest reason that Dems are at a disadvantage: principles over party. Republicans are much better at voting together for their party and not fretting about whether individual candidates meet their principles, which in turn (maybe ironically) gets them much better support for their principles. Before deciding not to vote, here’s one thing to maybe consider: which vote is more likely to get us any closer to ranked-choice voting, so that you can vote without caving on your principles in the future, and/or maybe getting rid of the electoral college? Conservatives are benefitting massively from the electoral college, gerrymandering, and strong collective party action. Both voting right, and not voting, delays the possibility of an outcome where we can vote on our principles. Dems are losing the vote often, and losing support for their shared principles as a result, despite having an actual majority, due to the party being splintered over principles and being less willing to vote collectively. (Note I’m in favor of voting on principles and not blindly on party. I wish we had a voting system that enabled it. Just pointing out the realities of the different party strategies as I see them.)
  - ifyoubuildit 2y ago
    > Republicans are much better at voting together for their party and not fretting about whether individual candidates meet their principles, I've seen a lot of "vote blue no matter who", to the point that it seems a lot of people don't care at all who the specific person is, as long as they aren't on the wrong team.
    - dahart 2y ago
      Yep true, that is happening - and mostly because people are recognizing it’s what the GOP is doing and it’s working, and trying to emulate it.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    I was kind of hoping my original comment here would lead to more meaningful conversation like this. I have to assume there are others here that feel similar to me, but it's an opinion that many may not raise for exactly like many of the ones I got here (down votes and arguments for why I'm wrong and must vote). I'm not opposed to ranked choice voting or straight majority rules voting. I could see voting for congressional representatives that I believe to be serious about such a change, but the president really doesn't have any say in it. I'm also totally open to other potentials the Democrats could pick. The bar is really low in my opinion, I just need to see someone that I don't expect to be actively harmful to the country, especially with so many different challenging scenarios playing out globally right now.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > I view voting as a responsibility to pick a candidate I want to lead rather than a vote to block someone I don't want to lead My viewing water as a non-liquid doesn’t make it less wet. Not voting is a delegated vote for the status quo, i.e. whoever wins.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Not voting can also be a principled stance when I view both candidstes as a fundamentally bad option. Where will we be if we all agree that the two parties have full control and we have no choice but to accept whatever they offer us? To me that sounds like a way to ensure that our democracy isn't sustainable. If someone puts a gun in your hand and says you have no choice but to shoot your spouse or your child, would you actually accept that you must do one or the other? I'm well aware that's an extreme example and I'm not arguing that we are at that level politically today, but accepting one of the two parties no matter what the options are does allow for that scenario later.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Not voting can also be a principled stance when I view both candidstes as a fundamentally bad option Sure. And I agree someone thinking that way shouldn't vote. None of that changes the effects of not voting when one has the right to. > Where will we be if we all agree that the two parties have full control and we have no choice but to accept whatever they offer us? Most people seeking to justify civic nonparticipation ignore primaries and early campaign work. Or the fact that ballots have more than one line item. > accepting one of the two parties no matter what the options are does allow for that scenario later Not voting cedes control. There are zero historic examples of civic nonparticipation resulting in a more responsive government. Someone who doesn't vote functionally accepts the status quo. That they don't understand what they're doing isn't relevant. Put another way: there were hundreds of elections in 2023 [1]. A non-voter had precisely the same impact on each of them as they do where they live. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elections_in_2023 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elections_in_2023
      - 2y ago
- beowulfey 2y ago
  100% getting deja vu back to 2016 with this comment
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    I was very unhappy with the options in 2016 and 2020 as well. Both times I bit my lip and voted for a candidate I didn't believe in because I at least believed they could do the job and they weren't Trump. I just can't do it again, and even if I wanted to I didn't have faith that Biden could do the job any longer and I don't think Harris is qualified at all (if that's who they pick).
- kanbara 2y ago
  this take is bad for one simple reason: if you stay home and trump wins, we don’t have a country or democracy anymore, and you contributed directly to the destruction of social norms and systems that ensure peace, stability, and the rule of law. you can feel smug as the republican party destroys democracy and slides into fascism, but it won’t really get you anywhere.
  - swader999 2y ago
    He already had one term. The world didn't end. I don't understand this line of doom.
    - cloverich 2y ago
      Because he undermined the election process in a serious way. If he loses, it sends a signal that siding with someone who does that is risky. If he wins, it opens the door to someone much more cunning than him, to do the same thing, but better. Its a brilliant way to short-circuit the entire political system which has let the US enjoy such a brilliant stretch of stability.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        Let's put Trump aside for a moment. What do you see a Harris presidency looking like? Do you think she is our country's best option to solve the problems we face today, or is her role to fill the chair so Trump can't sit in it?
        lostdog 2y ago
        Harris will be fine but unremarkable. Middle of the road economic policy, with slightly more protectionism for high tech. Immigration policy continues as-is, with a slight increase in preventing illegal immigration. An Obama-like foreign policy, with good intentions, but bumbling in execution. Compare that to Trump's recorded: Exploded deficits due to tax cuts. Banning abortion. More power given to corporations over people. Harming our alliances. Maybe you disagree with this characterization, but so many people that he chose for his administration came out and said how terrible of a President he was. I'm not a Kamala fan, but the choice is so easy.
- JojoFatsani 2y ago
  Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Thats the problem, I don't see either option as event adjacent to "good". A bit beside the point, but I also don't appreciate the Democratic Party putting us in this position to begin with. It has been clear for over a year, even with limited public events, that Biden's health and cognitive ability was declining. We now are left with an unprecedented scenario of the party having to figure out how to pick a candidate in record time with zero voter input.
- mcswell 2y ago
  As Jack Aubrey said, one must always pick the lesser of two weevils.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  You see your responsibility as wrong. We are caretakers of the country, we should vote for the best person to lead it, but barring that, we should vote against someone destructive taking power. If the country goes to heck in the next 4 years (and it hasn’t yet, the last 3.5 years have been pretty peaceful) because you decided voting against someone wasn’t moral, then you have to blame yourself. Of course, if you don’t live in a swing state, then you can pretty much not vote and not feel any responsibility for the outcome, since we have so little influence anyways.
  - RachelM71948937 2y ago
    [dead]
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    > we should vote against someone destructive taking power What do we do if we believe both options to be destructive in different ways? I believed that re-electing Biden in his current state would be destructive, potentially because he isn't fit today not certainly because he won't be in 4.5 years. I believe Trump to be a sociopathic narcissist. And, if Harris is selected, I view her to be unfit for the job and an incompetent leader that would be walking into the Oval Office at one of the most important times we've seen since the 40s. I don't live in a swing state so I do agree my vote is ignored anyway, but I have voted every presidential election until now anyway. I want my voice heard, I just don't want to align my voice with any of these options and don't see how they could possibly be the best our country has to offer.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      Whatever you think about him, Biden has been a boring adult, not a petulant 5 year old. He makes boring adult decisions, he never complained when the fed raised interest rates because inflation took off (like Trump did), I don't have to worry about him going off and nationalizing the fed, or replacing income taxes with a tariff that will make life much harder for everyone. Basically, he is a boring guy who doesn't even entertain doing crazy stuff. Trump is a pure populist, narcissist, and really, every thing he proposes is nuts. I get you view Harris as unfit for no particular reason other than you think she is a DEI hire or something. But I bet she is just like other adult politicians, who isn't going to be very interesting, but isn't going to do anything crazy either. Anyways, the bar is low since I don't think Democrats could run anyone that would make me consider Trump's insanity. Heck, I'm probably splitting my vote this year, since I don't like Bob Ferguson for governor of WA, I'm a moderate who isn't happy with the decriminalization that has happened in my city/county/state over the last four years. BUT I value stability over anything else, I at least will vote for adults and not 5 year olds (I never thought we would get here, but Romney, McCain, and even Bush were grown ups that I could stomach).
- wayeq 2y ago
  That's exactly how we got 4 years of Trump, people in the critical swing states weren't motivated to go vote for Hillary. He then attempted to disenfranchise millions of Americans in the 2020 election, coming surrealistically close to achieving that goal, and incited an insurrection. So please don't make this mistake.
  - talldatethrow 2y ago
    Do you really think it was an insurrection? Trump supporters are definitely in the gun owning demographics. Yet basically zero guns were present in the whole event, especially inside the capital. To me that screams not an insurrection.
    - pell 2y ago
      I think you might be a bit misinformed there. I’d suggest you give this a read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
      - talldatethrow 2y ago
        So this certificate thing was the insurrection?
- kiitos 2y ago
  The US has a first-past-the-post electoral system, and in that particular system, the way the game theory plays out is that it always stabilizes to a two-party situation, and, very literally, your responsibility as a voter is in fact to vote for the candidate with which you are most closely aligned. Anything else is self-subverting.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    That model fails when I align with neither candidate. It also fails if both parties were to collude and offer us a false choice (hypothetical, I'm not proposing that's what we have today).
    - kiitos 2y ago
      Maybe I'm not communicating clearly. The model is about the game theoretics of the electoral system, it has nothing to do with the preferences of any individual voter.
- Modified3019 2y ago
  Yeah, same. Honestly I’m flabbergasted at the state of things.

xhevahir 2y ago

There's always the option, taken by millions of Americans every election, of not voting for anyone. A unity ticket of two unpopular centrist candidates is not a recipe for success.

alistairSH 2y ago
Not voting is a vote for “whatever”. If you really don’t see a difference between Trump and Harris (or Biden or any other), I’m really not sure what to say…
- lotsoweiners 2y ago
  Yet you still felt the need to say something.

magicink81 2y ago

RFK Jr and Nicole Shanahan are running, and already on the ballot in 29 states. Though you won't see them interviewed on CNN or Fox News, many polls show them winning against Trump. One of the reasons that RFK Jr started his campaign last year was a poll by Zogby which "surveyed over 26,000 likely voters across all 50 states, indicated that Kennedy could potentially outperform both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump in head-to-head matchups." I believe the poll showed the majority of independent votes going to RFK Jr, and a significant portion of D and R votes going to him as well. Given recent events, perhaps Trump is now much more popular, but previously polls showed RFK Jr beating Trump. https://www.kennedy24.com/ https://www.kennedy24.com/

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> perhaps Trump is now much more popular, but previously polls showed RFK Jr beating Trump Trump isn’t more popular. RFK was never beating anybody. If he played his card better he might have put himself into the running for Trump’s VP. The bigger problem is there is a strong political incentive to look at who doesn’t vote and transfer their chips to those who do. (Appealing to non-voters doesn’t work. Most non-voters aren’t principled, they’re just lazy or indecisive, irrespective of what they say.)
jncfhnb 2y ago
It’s more conceivable than people are willing to believe that RFK could get more votes than trump in this election. For example, trump might die before election day, in which RFK might have a chance. Not at winning broadly of course.